If you live or work in a large or old building, you're no stranger to the limitations of wireless coverage. One router in a well-chosen location can broadcast a signal just about everywhere, but distance or interference can get in the way of that signal. Even worse, you may not be able to improve your situation through adding a second wireless access point or moving the router to a central location. Maybe you're renting a building and you can't run more wiring through the walls, or maybe your cable modem has to live on one end of your house, leaving the other far away from your wireless signal.

That's where a wireless repeater can come in handy. These gadgets, which can be placed basically anywhere there's an outlet, catch a wireless signal and then rebroadcast it, helping to strengthen the signal from a router on the first floor of a three-story house or on the opposite side of a building. Their convenience isn't without its downsides: they can be difficult to configure, and they can also drag down your network's performance. In this post, we'll make some recommendations to address the former issue, and we'll do some benchmarks to demonstrate when wireless repeaters do and don't make sense.

An introduction to wireless repeaters

Plenty of products are purpose-built to be repeaters, but I tend to shy away from these both because of their price (often equal to or greater than that of standalone routers themselves) and because they lack versatility—if you ever move, purchase a better router, or do something else that obviates the need for a repeater, you're stuck with a device that can only do one thing.

For those reasons, I prefer to use routers that can also be configured as repeaters. Some higher-end routers include this functionality already, but you can easily install third-party firmware like DD-WRT on a cheap router to give it the ability to act as a repeater as well—just check their list of supported devices and read the installation instructions before you buy. Personally, I've purchased several refurbished Cisco Linksys E1000 routers for about $20 apiece and converted them into reliable repeaters without problems.

5GHz vs. 2.4GHz: It's about frequency, not speed

For the uninitiated: Routers that use the 2.4 GHz frequency are subject to interference from other electronics, including but not limited to microwaves, cordless phones, and other routers. The 5GHz frequency band is desirable because there's less traffic there, reducing the possibility of interference, but both the router and your devices must support it. Most 5GHz routers also support the 2.4GHz band for wider compatibility.

There are also shortcomings to that approach, however. For the vast majority of the population that isn't comfortable with the idea of hacking into their router and following a convoluted series of instructions to upgrade the firmware, it's a process that can easily lead to a useless, bricked piece of hardware. For those people, I might recommend the recently released Securifi Almond touchscreen router, which we'll be using for our benchmarking later on (full disclosure: Securifi sent Ars a unit for review).

As we mentioned in a previous article, the Almond's specifications aren't going to break records, especially at its list price of $79: it has two 100 megabit Ethernet ports and 2.4GHz single-band 802.11n wireless, where some routers can offer both gigabit Ethernet and simultaneous 2.4 and 5 GHz WiFi. The Almond also lacks support for IPv6, a feature not in wide use currently but one that is becoming increasingly important (Securifi told me that IPv6 and a few other features and bug fixes will be included in a firmware update next month).

For that price, if you're looking for raw speed, you have a number of better options: the Cisco Linksys E3200 offers simultaneous dual-band wireless, gigabit Ethernet, and DD-WRT compatibility for $80, and if you're willing to buy manufacturer refurbished units, you can pick up the slightly older (but similarly specced) E3000 or Netgear's WNDR3700 for $65 and $60, respectively. All are stronger routers than the Almond, making the touchscreen router a tough sell if you aren't scared of a Web interface.

What the Almond does do is put wireless repeating capabilities fully within reach of basically anyone who has ever connected to a wireless network before. Most of its basic configuration—including wireless repeater setup—is handled via its Metro-esque touchscreen, so configuring it as a repeater is a far cry from the multi-step nightmare that DD-WRT would be for a normal person.

Limitations of repeaters and other considerations

Using a router as a repeater is a great way to extend wireless range without investing too much of your money or time, but there are a few technical issues you should be aware of.

When your router is working as a wireless repeater, it’s using half of its internal antennae to receive a wireless signal and the other half to transmit a new signal, effectively halving the potential speed of a given device’s network connection. In many cases, you won’t really notice the difference when simply browsing the Internet (though this will depend on the speed of your Internet connection), but file transfer speed will definitely suffer, as we'll see.

When deciding where to place both your router and your repeater, it's important to put them both in a central location, and not to keep the repeater too far away from the main router—if you put the repeater on the very edge of your main network hoping to strengthen the signal to your devices, you're going to reduce the speed of your connection to the rest of the network and to the Internet. You also want to try not to daisy chain repeaters—while it's completely possible to have a second repeater repeating the signal of your first repeater (phew), it compounds the performance issues—if you've got so much space to cover that you need multiple repeaters, set your router up in a central location and connect the repeaters directly to it rather than each other.

Setting up the Almond

When you first power on the Almond, it will ask you whether you’d like to use it as a standard router or a wireless repeater, here called a "range extender."

Andrew Cunningham

When you opt to use it as a repeater, the wizard will show you a list of all wireless networks in range—select one and type in its password. While the Almond’s screen does respond to fingers, the stylus stored on the bottom of the router is a better fit for its tiny onscreen keyboard.

One can't be held responsible for what one's neighbors name their wireless networks.

Andrew Cunningham

The Almond's onscreen keyboard is best used with the included stylus.

Andrew Cunningham

If you’ve typed your key correctly, the Almond will create a new wireless network called <your SSID>_almond using the same password as the main router. Connect devices to the repeater’s SSID, and congratulations—you’ve successfully configured your wireless repeater.

Andrew Cunningham

The end result is the same whether you’re using the $80 Almond or a $20 router flashed with DD-WRT, but compare the latter’s repeater bridge directions to the screenshots here and you’ll see why the Almond could be very appealing to the less technically inclined.

Benchmarks

Our main test machine was a Dell Latitude E6410 laptop with gigabit Ethernet and an Intel 6300 802.11n adapter. We tested six different scenarios, selected to show Internet and file transfer speeds under a wide variety of conditions, and to demonstrate the speed of a wireless repeater relative to a standard wireless network:

The laptop connected directly to the main router via gigabit Ethernet.

The laptop connected to the main router via a 5GHz connection. The laptop was positioned about ten feet from the router, with no obstructions between them.

The laptop connected to the main router via a 2.4GHz connection. The laptop’s position is the same as in the 5GHz test. This is the speed of the Almond when used as a standard router.

The laptop connected to the Almond repeater via 100 megabit Ethernet, the maximum supported by the Almond.

The laptop connected to the Almond repeater via a 2.4GHz connection. The laptop was placed about ten feet from the Almond, and the Almond was placed about 25 feet from the main router, with no obstructions between them.

The same test as above, but with the Almond placed about 40 feet away and behind a closed door, to create some interference.

To test Internet download speed, upload speed, and latency, we used Speedtest.net, running the test three times and averaging the results. All tests were done within about 20 minutes to reduce the likelihood that changes in the ISP’s network load would skew the results. To test file transfer speed, we moved one 998MB file from the laptop’s desktop to a file server connected to the network via gigabit Ethernet.

Andrew Cunningham

Andrew Cunningham

Andrew Cunningham

The Internet speed tests show that for many Internet connections, the Almond (or whatever repeater you use) will prove more than fast enough. You can see that the upload speeds remained about the same regardless of how my laptop was connected to the network—for people with 10Mbps or maybe even 15Mbps Internet connections, having a repeater won’t slow your Internet access down much.

You do begin to run into bottlenecks as your Internet speeds increase, and as you introduce obstructions between the routers. For my own 50Mbps download speeds, the Almond shaves a few Mbps off of the top even when I was connected with a wire, and speeds fall off pretty quickly after that—you’re really feeling the effects of the halved bandwidth in the wireless tests.

Andrew Cunningham

Transferring files is a much different story, since file transfers will typically soak up any and all bandwidth you have to give them. Even a good 5GHz 802.11n connection pales in comparison to gigabit Ethernet, and the best possible speed you’ll get out of your repeater is still about half of what you’ll get from a direct wireless connection. Where you really see the effect is in the "real-world" test—just by moving the repeater a few feet and putting it behind a closed door, you more than halve your speed.

Conclusions: Trading coverage for speed

The Almond's Metro-esque home screen.

Andrew Cunningham

A well-placed wireless repeater is a great way to get a WiFi signal into every nook and cranny of your home or small business without the extra work or expenditure of running cables through the walls of a building, but that convenience isn't without its costs. Most Internet users, especially lighter users with slower connections, won't notice the bandwidth that is lost by rebroadcasting a wireless signal, but for performance-intensive tasks like file transferring or streaming over the local network, that extra signal is going to cost you quite a bit of performance.

As for what you should use to expand your network: techies and intrepid DIYers with a spare weekend can save some cash and go with DD-WRT, which can add much more to a router than just the ability to rebroadcast a wireless signal. For everyone else, though, the Almond is an excellent solution—the touchscreen drives up the price for what is otherwise a rather entry-level router, but it easily achieves its stated goal of simplifying networking setup.

61 Reader Comments

While the techy in me is interested in putting our old wrt54gs to good use, the realist in me thinks the nice interface is probably worth it to make sure that I'm not the only one in the office would could reconfigure if necessary. Might give this a shot - thanks for the article.

If you have very little interference, you can improve your transfer speeds by using larger frames. If you have a lot of interference, you can dramatically improve your effective transfer speeds by using smaller frames.

Here's an idea I just had. Two cheap wireless routers running DD-WRT. One bridges to your main AP/router, the other is set up as another AP. Then connect them together with a short Ethernet cable. Unless I've missed something that should get you the extended range with no slow down as you have a dedicated radio for each hop.

I'm glad Ars has done an article along these lines. I found the need for a wireless relay some time ago and bought a Billion 3100SN. It was without a doubt the most difficult piece of networking equipment i've ever had to setup. I do not recommend it for newbies. But once I got it running it works like a charm.

So how does it work if you are connected to SSID_Almond and wander through your house to SSID does it drop and reconnect or is it totally seamless as in if your streaming music or the like it does not drop out?

So how does it work if you are connected to SSID_Almond and wander through your house to SSID does it drop and reconnect or is it totally seamless as in if your streaming music or the like it does not drop out?

I want to know this too. Don't some repeaters seamlessly use the same SSID so you don't have to choose whether you'd rather connect to the repeater or the original router?

I'd like to know what network security protocols you can use with this. I've tried using a WRT54G (with Tomato installed) as a repeater and if I recall, it wouldn't let me use any form of network security (no WPA/PSK, etc...). I decided it wasn't worth it to have an unsecure network. That's a pretty old router, though, so maybe with newer routers/repeaters one can use better security?

Also, would a dual-band router be able to maintain full speed by using one antenna (e.g., 5GHz) for receiving and the other (2.4GHz) for transmitting?

Okay, first, I must point out; the DD-WRT instructions are YEARS out of date at this point, so there are better instructions out there if you just go on Google for them.

Second, while I guess it's alright to pander to the less techie crowd, can we have another article with the same depth for the techie crowd that can handle DD-WRT/Tomato/OpenWRT, etc? for this kind of thing?

But, for me, being the cheap bastard I am, and having no need (currently) for a repeater, DD-WRT and Tomato offer the ability to increase the wireless signal output. Mine is currently set at 70mW and covers the whole apartment, and a bit outside.

I'd like to know what network security protocols you can use with this. I've tried using a WRT54G (with Tomato installed) as a repeater and if I recall, it wouldn't let me use any form of network security (no WPA/PSK, etc...). I decided it wasn't worth it to have an unsecure network. That's a pretty old router, though, so maybe with newer routers/repeaters one can use better security?

Also, would a dual-band router be able to maintain full speed by using one antenna (e.g., 5GHz) for receiving and the other (2.4GHz) for transmitting?

For both the Almond and DD-WRT, WPA2 is fully supported. For your second question, I'm not 100% sure—most of the repeaters I've used have been simple 2.4 GHz affairs.

Okay, first, I must point out; the DD-WRT instructions are YEARS out of date at this point, so there are better instructions out there if you just go on Google for them.

Second, while I guess it's alright to pander to the less techie crowd, can we have another article with the same depth for the techie crowd that can handle DD-WRT/Tomato/OpenWRT, etc? for this kind of thing?

But, for me, being the cheap bastard I am, and having no need (currently) for a repeater, DD-WRT and Tomato offer the ability to increase the wireless signal output. Mine is currently set at 70mW and covers the whole apartment, and a bit outside.

I don't think that trying to inform a less technical audience (or inform a technical audience about products suitable for a non-technical audience) is "pandering," really, but some sort of guide to the state of open router firmware could be fun to do, even if it's sort of been done before. I'll think it over.

But, for me, being the cheap bastard I am, and having no need (currently) for a repeater, DD-WRT and Tomato offer the ability to increase the wireless signal output. Mine is currently set at 70mW and covers the whole apartment, and a bit outside.

That's a good way to dramatically shorten the lifespan of your hardware. I really don't recommend doing that.

I don't think that trying to inform a less technical audience (or inform a technical audience about products suitable for a non-technical audience) is "pandering," really, but some sort of guide to the state of open router firmware could be fun to do, even if it's sort of been done before. I'll think it over.

I mention the 'pandering' (apparently a strong word), because you mention alternatives, like Cisco's E1000/3000/3200 that can technically perform the same functions as the Almond. I imagine you could look around for instructions and do a similar article using DD-WRT or Tomato on those routers as a wireless repeater.

Granted it may be a tad more complicated, if you are using the 'official' DD-WRT instructions, but I personally don't mind a challenge most of the time.

But, for me, being the cheap bastard I am, and having no need (currently) for a repeater, DD-WRT and Tomato offer the ability to increase the wireless signal output. Mine is currently set at 70mW and covers the whole apartment, and a bit outside.

That's a good way to dramatically shorten the lifespan of your hardware. I really don't recommend doing that.

So is overclocking, but we do it anyway. Been running at ~70mW for a number of years now. Even if the 'shortened' life is 15 years to 10, I still think it's a good trade-off.

Plus, I think the stock power is 55 or 60 mW, and 70 is the minimum to cover the entire area of our place.

Sweet. Working in customer support for cable companies I loathed whenever people would complain about weak wireless signals, whether we gave them the router or not. I know repeaters existed, but one that is user friendly for the customers that don't understand that it's not always the router, and just maybe it's the plaster walls and copper pipes in the way; or the "computer degrees" who can't even open command prompt on their own.

come on, just dive into the Apple ecosystem and get Airport Express or Airport Extreme from the Apple Refurbished Store on the cheap and you are all set

I fully agree, but some people just like to tinker.

I used to be one of those people, and still am to an extent. But certain things I want to "just work" and not give me any hassle.

My APExtreme->APExpress combo does this flawlessly. As a side benefit, the APExpress also functions as an access point for my network-capable laser MFC printer, which allows me to keep it in a much more convenient place.

For under $30, i doubt a solid competitor exists right now. Currently using it as my home router as the last one just died - it has great range and works really well. we're getting a new router though b/c i need the repeater for my garage.

The speed tests really don't affect me much. What I am most interested is in actual range, because it doesn't matter how fast your connection is if you can't connect.

Exactly.

Useful range on the Almond is about 100 feet, depending on how many doors/walls you've got and what they're made out of. This was more of a "wireless repeater explainer" article than a proper review of the Almond itself—the actual range of a network using repeaters will vary depending on the router and repeater(s) you use, of course.

I use a Netgear router as my main unit (the one supplied by SamKnows) and it has terrible range compared to my old WRT54GS. I originally had the 54GS setup as a bridge/repeater with no physical connection to the main router. I used the same SSID, I would have weird drops at times so switched to two different SSIDs and for the most part they would swap over if connection was lost to one of them.

However, the PCs/tablets would doggedly hang on as long as possible to the weak signal before moving over to the stronger SSID. I ended up relocating the 54GS because we rarely used the wired IP camera attached to it - the main reason for this ordeal.

Now it is set up strictly as an AP with a wire running from the second floor to the basement using the same SSID.

I still connect to the slower 54GS more times than not, but range and reliability seem to be improved.

I'd like to know why in your example, Speedtest.net resulted in 20.86 Mbps, which is 2.6075 MBps behind the door. However, in the file transfer test, you only got .75 MBps behind the door. Did you put tin foil on the door for the second test or something?

I'd like to know why in your example, Speedtest.net resulted in 20.86 Mbps, which is 2.6075 MBps behind the door. However, in the file transfer test, you only got .75 MBps behind the door. Did you put tin foil on the door for the second test or something?

Seriously, I don't understand the discrepancy.

Because SpeedTest is testing your connection to the Internet, while the file transfer was testing LAN transfer speeds. I'm not sure I get the discrepancy either, now that I think about it...

Here's an idea I just had. Two cheap wireless routers running DD-WRT. One bridges to your main AP/router, the other is set up as another AP. Then connect them together with a short Ethernet cable. Unless I've missed something that should get you the extended range with no slow down as you have a dedicated radio for each hop.

That's exactly how I've got my network setup now. Works well. The second router has a separate SSID from the other one, but I'm not sure if that's the best way to configure it. I've heard that you can set them both to the same SSID which allows a mostly seamless transition between the two routers. I'm not sure how the client device selects which router to connect to in that case. Does it go to the strongest signal our simply grabs the first one it finds? And will the handoff be seamless or does have to lose signal completely first and then switch so you have a brief period where you're not connected to either one? And does using the same SSID cause any interference issues?

Need to see the testing using a dual anteanna bridge instead of a simple repeater. also need to demonstrate the impact when using a second and third and fourth device in these scenarios. Otherwise, great article.

I'd like to know why in your example, Speedtest.net resulted in 20.86 Mbps, which is 2.6075 MBps behind the door. However, in the file transfer test, you only got .75 MBps behind the door. Did you put tin foil on the door for the second test or something?

Seriously, I don't understand the discrepancy.

Because SpeedTest is testing your connection to the Internet, while the file transfer was testing LAN transfer speeds. I'm not sure I get the discrepancy either, now that I think about it...

Mbps (the unit of measurement used in the Speedtest tests) and MB/s (used for the file transfer) are not the same, which is one factor (8 Mb = 1 MB). The other factor is that the Speedtest.net tests use pretty short bursts of communication, where the file transfers take longer (and the speed given is merely an average rate, which will have both peaks and valleys). Does that make sense?

You might mention that, although the Almond may have been recently released, it does not appear to actuall be for sale currently.

I was able to order one from Amazon and saw that next-day shipping was an option. When I chose next day shipping to see what would happen, the estimated delivery date was indeed July 27. So I think it is for sale for real.

I'd like to know why in your example, Speedtest.net resulted in 20.86 Mbps, which is 2.6075 MBps behind the door. However, in the file transfer test, you only got .75 MBps behind the door. Did you put tin foil on the door for the second test or something?

Seriously, I don't understand the discrepancy.

Because SpeedTest is testing your connection to the Internet, while the file transfer was testing LAN transfer speeds. I'm not sure I get the discrepancy either, now that I think about it...

Mbps (the unit of measurement used in the Speedtest tests) and MB/s (used for the file transfer) are not the same, which is one factor (8 Mb = 1 MB). The other factor is that the Speedtest.net tests use pretty short bursts of communication, where the file transfers take longer (and the speed given is merely an average rate, which will have both peaks and valleys). Does that make sense?

When I divide 20.86 Mbps by 8, that is where I get the 2.6075 MBps for the Speedtest. Comparing that to .75 MBps for the transfer.

Isn't the speedtest.net test an average as well? I can understand if there were say a 10-20% difference, but we are talking 3.5 times the speed from Speedtest.net over the LAN speeds. I would think the LAN speed would be faster, because of less overhead.

The other factor is that the Speedtest.net tests use pretty short bursts of communication, where the file transfers take longer (and the speed given is merely an average rate, which will have both peaks and valleys). Does that make sense?

Mbps (the unit of measurement used in the Speedtest tests) and MB/s (used for the file transfer) are not the same, which is one factor (8 Mb = 1 MB). The other factor is that the Speedtest.net tests use pretty short bursts of communication, where the file transfers take longer (and the speed given is merely an average rate, which will have both peaks and valleys). Does that make sense?

Well, I understand the MB vs Mb part, but not so much the difference between the SpeedTest and the file transfer, though your explanation does make some sense, SpeedTest does not really average out the number you get at the end.....

Isn't the speedtest.net test an average as well? I can understand if there were say a 10-20% difference, but we are talking 3.5 times the speed from Speedtest.net over the LAN speeds. I would think the LAN speed would be faster, because of less overhead.

It's an average of a way, way smaller period of time. The two tests are, basically, not directly comparable to one another.

Andrew Cunningham / Andrew has a B.A. in Classics from Kenyon College and has over five years of experience in IT. His work has appeared on Charge Shot!!! and AnandTech, and he records a weekly book podcast called Overdue.